Written by a member of the NextArmy Design Team and published in "The
State" Newspaper (Columbia, SC) last spring.
There is a painful discussion in the news lately, dealing with a
recent Pentagon request to "relax" the environmental regulations
under which the military labors to operate. Depending on which side
of the debate you favor, this is either the end of the 20 different
endangered species, or a long-overdue return of the military's focus
to training over all other issues.
In reality, it's probably somewhere in between. But there are real
problems with making blanket statements about how the military treats
the environment, and activists should be careful how they word their
objections to military practices.
First, the military is an easy target, because many activist groups
see it as a monolithic collective. It's easy to impose regulations
on an organization that is (a) a part of the federal government, and
(b) not likely to impact anyone's wallet by reducing profitability.
There are, however, many impacts in the real world for soldiers. The
red-cockaded woodpecker is found in large concentrations on Ft.
Bragg, NC. Initially, certain areas of the post were set aside as
"light training" areas, used mainly for compass courses or road
marches, and other activity unlikely to interfere with the nesting of
this endangered species. However, as the woodpecker population has
grown in number, the government has set aside more land for the
growing population, restricting the training areas available on Ft.
Bragg. At last count over half of the live-fire ranges on Ft. Bragg
were closed or restricted because of a woodpecker.
Now, I am firmly in support of preserving endangered species, but I
also support preserving our soldiers' lives in a battle. With fewer
available ranges, there are fewer training opportunities for the
soldiers, which translates to troops in battle that are not as
trained as they could be. No one has bothered to correlate the
relationship between woodpecker nesting and soldiers dying on a
battlefield, but if they did, would you want be the one writing the
letter to that paratrooper's mother? Last time I checked, we sent
the 82nd Airborne Division to fight our wars, not the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Ft. Bragg is not alone in this quandary, either. Ft. Lewis, WA, is
home to a large bald eagle population. Ft. Irwin, CA has an
endangered species of turtle. A platoon leader at Ft. Hunter Liggett
once used environmental markers for faerie shrimp spawning pools to
force his opposition into his field of fire during a training
exercise. The sage grouse of Yakima Training Center forces units to
expose their flanks to enemy fire through the middle of the main
maneuver corridor.
The military, and the Army in particular, preaches to its members to
"train as you fight." The reality is that in a war, you kill bad
guys first, and pet fuzzy critters second. There has to be an
acceptable middle ground. Set aside certain areas for light use, but
don't allows those areas to expand with animal populations. Instead,
arrange transplant programs to move them to other federal lands.
Allow our soldiers to train as they would fight and give them back
their training areas.
During a war, no one parks a major bivouac area in the midst of an
endangered species, unless there is no alternative. But during a
war, no one worries about the red-cockaded woodpecker when you're
being shot at, either.